7 thoughts on “Cambrian Explosion”

  1. I actually enjoyed reading this. It was easy to read, flowed well, and was interesting. It brought up a lot of key questions that can be applied to broader subjects within evolution than the Cambrian explosion alone. I found that many of the issues Levinton raised caused me to think more deeply about the way we view the geological history of the earth. He added dimensions to the people behind the discoveries in paleontology and geology that led to our current time scale, and explained in detail how the naming of the different fossils and periods came about, and how changes in our thinking over time were the result of new discoveries and dedicated scientists. I found it particularly useful that he talked about many of the different plants and animals that we have been going over in class; they now seem a little more familiar to me!

  3. I saw this post, read of over it too quickly in pursuit to work look at the rest of the site and work on various things. I will definitely read and still commit to feedback regardless of marks.

  4. I’ll be honest with you and admit that this was very hard for me to read. It wasn’t really the content that was the issue; I think it was having to read it online. It’s not so bad with some of the other shorter articles that were on blackboard, but with this one being so long, it was a real struggle for me (or perhaps I should say my eyes).

    However, content-wise, this was a good one! There were some really great pictures and diagrams that help make the concepts a little more concrete for visual learners like me. I especially like the cladogram on page 465. I also enjoyed the part about the molecular clock, and how it relates to the concept of our perceptions coloring outcomes, as well as discussions we've had in class about scientists having to make things "fit".

  6. I thought this article was like a nice narrative of what we have been learning in class. We are introduced to some main players like Darwin or Cloud, ancient creatures, major debates, and areas of importance like the Burgess Shale. This article easily unites all of the components that go into the Cambrian Explosion. This article touches on many ideas and goes into a decent amount of detail. I find it really fascinating to see how scientific thought changes over time and this article shows that along with background knowledge on our current topic!

  7. I found the article to be well written. Although, I felt it got muddled around pgs 469 – 480 (pdf pgs. 28 – 39). I say muddled because it got technical and I found myself lost in science speak with words and concepts that seemed unfamiliar. However, I got through the part, but I don’t feel I understood it as well as the rest. I definitely liked the author approaching different theories and causes and placing these concepts into numbered points. I think that the excerpt covered many debates, rehashed familiar creatures like Cloudina, Wiwaxia, etc. The illustrations were crisp and clear. I enjoyed the author discussing various scientists involved in the process of identifying fossils, establishing geologic time, and the debate over the Cambrian Explosion itself. Gould didn’t come out very favorily in this excerpt.

    The two things that fascinated me most was the questioning over of the Cambrian Explosion, was it an explosion at all, and how has Hox genes played a role in the development of creature characteristics.

    Honestly, based on exposure to this subject, I think the Cambrian Explosion was a mixture of evolutionary radiation because the conditions and creature composition of the Earth were changing. However, I believe that conditions and the structure of creatures were good were more suited to yield more fossils than time before the Cambrian. Being that many creatures were soft bodied and tectonic activity worked against the preservation of these creatures. This leaves us wondering how many animals actual evolved. I think there was probably less evolution change than suspected.

    I think I will need to re-read this excerpt because it is highly detailed.

Comments are closed.